tv Bloomberg Business Week Bloomberg July 16, 2017 8:00am-9:00am EDT
carol: megan murphy, in the economic section, you look at oil and the discussion of peak oil. maybe here sooner than we thought? megan: we invert the theory of peak oil which is usually focused on supply. what the story talks about his oil demand is peaking sooner than a lot of governments, a lot of executives may have thought. that is down to several factors. electric cars are really gaining in popularity. china's growth has slowed and there is pushback on a mission for cleaning up the environment. that has led to a quicker slowdown in demand for oil, obviously coupled with extraordinarily low prices. that is pressing on the demand side of the equation. oliver: what i thought was interesting is that when you think about potential peak demand for oil, there is a lot of cataclysmic theories you can come up with because so much of the world's biggest powers rely on that for income. in the story none of these institutions really seem too alarmed about it yet. megan: i think it will get more
alarmed. the number one example of a place that is reinventing what it is doing is saudi arabia with aramco and how they are trying to reinvent their economy going forward to deal with what is going to be the decline over time of oil, which has always been predicted, just not this rapidly. this has the biggest ramifications for the middle east. in the u.s., we remember in the late last decade is talking about oil independence for the u.s. we had fracking and the rise of natural gas, etc., and how we as a country regarded our dependency on foreign oil is a key foreign-policy objective. this is a big economic development, but also a huge economic and larger political development in how it reshapes these power structures between the u.s., china, and the middle east. carol: we don't have enough oil, we need more oil, we need to drill. all of a sudden maybe we have enough.
megan: some areas will never get drilled. the battle we have had over alaska and offshore areas where fishermen and protected waters. that is changing rapidly. what will be so interesting to companies these big diversify. the bp's, royal dutch shell, how they deal with the rise of solar and exploit those as well in terms of petrochemicals. oliver: let's move to the cover story, the profile of someone everybody knows and that is lloyd blankfein. megan: they should know. this is a project close to my heart. as a former banking reported during the crisis. i think people forget if you look across the entire group of bank ceo's in europe and the u.s., lloyd and jamie dimon are the only two left standing. what is great about this story is lloyd has sort of been behind the spotlight.
jamie has taken a more senior role at j.p. morgan chase and putting himself out there, but lloyd has gone to the place where so many of us go to air our public opinions on twitter. he has emerged on twitter. his first was critiquing donald trump's decision to take us out of the paris climate accord. he is trying to shake up with the future will be in terms of trading, fixed income, and where he is repositioning the bank and doing a soup to nuts look at the business. he has come back from a cancer scare and he is playing an essential role in the new goldman. i want to call it lloyd 8.0, but it is lloyd 3.0. dakin: we are seeing this as
sort of lloyd's third act. if you think that from 2006 when he became ceo goldman sachs until the crisis, that was the first act. that act was very successful for them. they avoided the fate of some of their chief rivals. they turned up incredible profits for wall street. the second act was after that, the reputational damage, the senate in congressional testimony lloyd had to do. now we are calling this the third act, the idea of after he has come back from cancer about 18 months ago. now he is sort of reinvigorated. it is at a time when goldman has some of the biggest challenges they have faced in quite some time. oliver: does he see it that well?
downse you sort of sat conversation.ad a does he view it as a new beginning as well? dakin: he laughs at my construction of the third act and wonders what happened at the end of the third act. carol: tragedy, comedy? dakin: exactly. he recognizes there is a challenge and a lot of people are questioning the business model that goldman is wedded to. carol: i feel the big banks have gone through a comeuppance since the financial crisis and a rethinking some other strategies. what is different about goldman from some of the other big banks? dakin: going into the crisis goldman was about investment banking and trading. they had a smaller asset management arm and a principal investing arm. other banks did, too. what other banks have done is they changed the mix substantially. morgan stanley is one good example. in their sales and trading
business they cut 25% of their people. they took a hard look at the new environment and said, hey, the trading we used to know and love in the early days are not coming back. we need to right-size our business. lloyd has taken a look at the same environment and said, a lot of this is probably cyclical. if we wait it out, we will be the big winners because of the morgan stanley's of the world pullback and reduce their commitment to certain markets, when those markets come roaring back to life goldman will be there. they have always been there and they will be rewarded for that. oliver: when you talk about the core of the business and what it's going forward, there is a bifurcated approach. on the one hand, there are a lot of new things happening at goldman that you address in the story, the consumer lending and focusing on asset management.
but on the other hand, there is a sort of going against the grain. sticking with some of the higher risk stuff. is that where he is indeed breaking from the pack or is it the other one which is expanding into different areas? dakin: good question. that i took for the story is he is staying more true to his business model and perhaps others. lloyd is a student of history. in his spare time he reads a lot of books about history. the people i talked to in reporting this story, a lot of them rock that up and the idea that he sees a lot of these things as cycles. whereas others may see them as structural changes. it is his approach the history -- the great depression took a decade to get over. but guess what, you might not have thought it was ever going to end, but it did and things got better.
if you look at the cycle from a long enough view or long enough lens, you would realize things do come back. oliver: turning lloyd blankfein into a cover model. the job of creative director rob vargas. rob: we were negotiating for a couple of days. it was last-minute. the day we shot him we found out we can move ahead. we got exactly two minutes with him at the goldman offices but we got some great options. oliver: the pictures turned out fantastic. they describe a character a lot of people maybe don't associate with lloyd blankfein. rob: you think of ceo's and bankers as these austere people, but he had like this very positive energy.
smiling and laughing. it was great. oliver: and he still has the beard. we are going to talk with john mickelthwaite about his story on brussels. tell us about the international cover. rob: it is largely about the euro, the eurozone and how they are doing well after brexit. all the stories are pretty much holding hands. it is very kumbuya. when you hear about brexit, there is a lot of negativity. but there is an upside. oliver: unison coming out of it at the end of the day. up next, brussels bureaucrats get a second wind. and how companies are using electronic dancing to reach young consumers in pakistan. this is bloomberg businessweek. ♪
oliver: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." you can catch us that businessweek.com. app.n our bloomberg a bit of a rebirth in brussels. john: there are really two big reasons why brussels is suddenly back. one is brexit that fundamentally rather encouraging people to leave actually persuaded a lot of people to stay. the european union may have its faults, but god knows it is better than what is happening to the british. so that was part one, the second thing which is very important with the arrival of emanuel macron. if france reforms, maybe mrs. merkel will be more clement. to some extent brussels seemed dead 18 months ago and now seems strangely alive. the elements of life are partly marcon, partly brexit. brexit shows how much more power
there is left in it. the british are not running into -- now running into the process of having pontificated and said the stuff about no deal is better than a bad deal. they now have arrived to negotiate in brussels. i was there when they came. they have just encountered what monty python recall the bleeding obvious. the rules of the european union are simple. when you leave it, most of the advantages are with those that remain rather than those that quit. in the same tone, economically the british can bluster as much as they want, but basically it is far more essential for the british economy than the other way around. there is a limit the other way. so what's been happening is brussels, i think sometimes gratuitously, has been enjoying
explaining to the british all the reasons why they have got that wrong, and the fact that haveeople they sent should some respect for the main negotiator. these people want a painless process. it is not. oliver: it is a second chance and a lot of things have to fall into place. john: that is right. everything in a sense is like a lazarus moment. there are other good things happening in europe. the economy is finally growing. you can argue things like the banking side of it -- the venetian banks being tied up. europe was famous for having failed reform. all the things american
businesspeople in particular scorn brussels for. some are beginning to move a little bit. that is all good, but everything in this narrative work gradually things begin to happen again. the idea in brussels that macron and merkel will combine and get integration in the eurozone. keep it.t under the surface nobody expects the european union to reemerge as this sort of force for a greater union. people are beginning to help, especially in brussels and other parts of europe, that will happen is there is greater integration in the eurozone. there are a lot of economists who would look at that and say that makes sense. it definitely makes sense. it is very hard to have a currency union without some kind of banking union, which they still don't really have, and risk sharing. eurobonds, all
those sort of things. the fact that mrs. merkel talked about a european finance minister, that gives hope to that. if the rest of europe reforms, it is in germany's interest as the main beneficiary of the euro to support them. that is all great, but it depends on macron succeeding and we don't know it's going to happen. that is part one. part two was if you are a german taxpayer, humidity forcing yourself into a position where you might trust marcon a little bit, but any promises you make through the european union or the eurozone also apply to you. -- apply to italy, and italy has 120% debt to gdp. and italy is not a good be a friend to the euro at the moment.
that is a problem people are thinking about now. that is a second layer of problems. the fundamental reasons are that europe has to start thinking about how exactly it should be. not everything the british said was wrong. oliver: up next, the story behind the far right information -- transformation of donald trump. and donald trump junior's emails and meeting with the russian lawyer. this is "bloomberg businessweek."
section, huges questions remain about the legal ramifications of donald trump jr.'s communications with a russian lawyer. paul barrett looks into the possibilities. paul: the meeting was advertised to trump jr. as one where he would encounter a kremlin connected lawyer who was ready to convey some kind of derogatory information about hillary clinton that was coming from the russian government, and all of this was part of a russian government effort to help donald trump. that is what we know so far. carol: we know that because we see that in these emails? paul: that is correct. released by donald trump jr. because he was under pressure with "the new york times" threatening to publish a story that would've included all the information.
this was not like he did with any real sense of transparency. oliver: and his reasoning changed over the news breaking. what did donald trump jr. or donald trump senior, the president, have to worry about from this? will be the investigation that happens here? paul: there are several levels of problems. at the highest level you have the question of credibility. trumps senior and junior have been denying they had any contact with the russians in connection with the campaign. that now looks like a series of lies. as a political matter, you have the president potentially further weakened by this scandal gaining momentum rather than being sidetracked and resolved. i think it will be at a political level difficult for the president to get anything accomplished in washington while it continues to percolate. boiling get down to the legal level, i think the potential
criminal liability created here is a conspiracy to violate u.s. election law. that takes a little explanation. the law provides that for nationals are not allowed to make occupations or donations or to provide anything of value, that is the key language, to u.s. politicians. it is also illegal to solicit from a foreign national a contribution or anything of value. the theory here, if a prosecutor was so inclined, would be that donald trump jr. was eager to receive or possibly was solicited information that was a thing of value, information that would hurt hillary clinton and help his father's candidacy. that is not a sort of
conservative or safe theory, is an aggressive theory for a prosecutor and rests on how far the definition of thing of value stretches. would hurt hillary clinton and i think the word "stretches" is the right word. it stretches the election law some, but it is not something that is laughable. it is something that is serious and robert mueller, the special counsel and his staff are prosecutors will at least consider. oliver: staying focused on the trumps, joshua green out with a new book detailing how the president from running in liberal circles to quitting far right ideals and conservative principles in his run for the white house. we talked with matt phillips. matt: josh green has had a front
row seat to trump's evolution from reality tv star into presidential candidate into president. to toll that in a series of interviews with steve bannon, political strategist. it goes back to the roots of the bannon-trump relationship and reminds us even though it was not that long ago about trump was this multicultural pop icon 10-12 years ago as the apprentice was getting all kinds of great ratings. it was popular among minority voters and how he kind of burned that to the ground and embraced this birther movement, this nativist populism that bannon has pushed them towards. carol: i watched "the apprentice." it was a diverse group of contestants. young and old, black and white, celebrity and noncelebrity, "celebrity." i forgot he really did appeal to minorities. how popular was he because of "the apprentice" among minority groups?
matt: the show was seen as this multicultural phenomenon that took everybody by surprise. it debuted in 2004 as nbc "friends" franchise was going away. and say the thursday night primetime slot and came out with a bang. corporate america loved it largely because of how well it through minority audiences. he was not only popular, he was more popular among blacks and hispanics that he was among caucasian viewers. advertisers loved it because you could get a wide swath of the american landscape by advertising on it, and they did a very good job of presenting a picture of minorities to america that really appealed to a lot of blacks and hispanics. today as we sit here and look
back at this 13 years ago, it seems crazy. but that was donald trump. carol: what is interesting, the popularity among minorities was something that advertisers and major brands caught on with. matt: that's right. and not only that, but it is something the republican party craved desperately. he had basically in his hands the one thing the republican party had been going away from since w. bush, losing popularity among minorities, especially hispanics. he had the potential to kind of bridge this gap that republicans have been looking for for a long time to bridge. what is interesting is the story that josh green tells is how he basically sacrificed that to embrace this much more populist, nativist narrative. oliver: up next, whether fertility market is booming in china. and a game changing court ruling on one of monsanto's most
so we need tablets installed... with the menu app ready to roll. in 12 weeks. yeah. ♪ ♪ the world of fast food is being changed by faster networks. ♪ ♪ data, applications, customer experience. ♪ ♪ which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. fast connections everywhere. that's how you outmaneuver. so new touch screens... and biometrics. in 574 branches. all done by... yesterday. ♪ ♪ banks aren't just undergoing a face lift. they're undergoing a transformation. a data fueled, security driven shift in applications and customer experience. which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed
across all your locations. hello, mr. deets. every branch running like headquarters. that's how you outmaneuver. ♪ oliver: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." monsanto has a big day in court as the company's roundup product comes under scrutiny. one of the world's largest cybersecurity firms and its ties to the kremlin. pakistani consumers find a new way to express themselves through parties sponsored by coke and pepsi. all of that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ oliver: we are back with "bloomberg businessweek" editor-in-chief megan murphy to talk about more must-reads.
a really interesting story you have looking at the impact of infertility in china. megan: a lot of people are familiar with china because of the one child policy which was phasing out in 2015. limited urban areas couples to having only one child. now that couples are free to have more, what they are discovering is some of the environmental factors in china, the extracurricular activities -- heavy smoking, heavy drinking, environmental conditions -- have not made it ideal to start a family. there is a heavy emphasis on having your own children instead of adopting, so a lot of couples are turning to fertility. in the western world, it is a huge business. medical basehuge here.
but in china, this is a $1.5 billion business as soon as next year and grow from there. carol: you said they are getting an assist but not necessarily from chinese companies. they are going to australia and the united states. they are going all over. megan: we have doctors in california and australia. it will be interesting to watch because the chinese pattern is you start with foreign and then channel it domestically. china is focused on building up their health care sector and using certain tax incentives and property incentives to encourage the rise of a stronger domestic health care system. certainly fertility given the number of couples affected and the number of people who want to expand their families, this is going to be a business in china. oliver: it is really interesting because a lot of it is ironically tied to the chinese economic boom and the lifestyle and you push off marriage later. kind ofhese things coalesce. megan: particularly for middle-class couples. it costs about $15,000 for one cycle of ivf treatment. that is far more than the average salary. for middle and upper income earners in china, that is very achievable. this is something that they have
the same issues in america with. women are working more, men are working more. they put it off until later. when you put it off until later, issues could arise. it is important for people to realize it is not what you thought of in your mind as the one-child policy. it is the same factors that have led to declining birth rates in america and europe. carol: let's talk about another great story which have to do with monsanto and their roundup weedkiller. and also a bunch of lawsuits coming up. megan: it is a very important story that we are fortunate to have space to devote to in the magazine. it is about monsanto and this decades long issue over roundup, in particular a chemical, and whether or not that is a carcinogen. there are two aspects. one is this has been a long-running issue for monsanto and debate and people suing, saying they believe it led to their cancer. on the other side of it in the far more unexplored side is the relationship the company had with the epa and the people who oversaw pesticides in america and the coziness that developed
there and how in fact the very government regulators responsible for keeping a safe pesticide that we are exposed to may have not fully been transparent about the exchanges they were having with the company and the dangers of this particular pesticide. oliver: a tremendous amount of data that has been waded through. a lot of great stuff and reporting from peter. about theith him story. peter: roundup, or its active ingredient, is the most widely sold chemical in the world. there is nearly a pound of it on average in every single acre of cultivated land globally. quite a very large selling chemical. now since 2000, when monsanto lost patent protection for it, the chinese have been manufacturing the chemical in prodigious quantities. monsanto still has 20% to 25% of
the market in terms of volume and a much higher percentage, around 40% of the market in terms of revenue because their roundup product, the trade name for the herbicide they sell is very widely selling and commands a premium. monsanto invented the chemical and this is a linchpin of the genetically modified organism seed sales that monsanto literally pioneered in the 1990's. if you don't know anything about monsanto or genetically modified organisms, you need to know this and that is very simply monsanto modified the dna, they reengineered the dna of cotton, soybeans, and several other commodity crops so that they would be resistant to the chemical.
basically, this allows farmers to apply copious amounts of this weedicide to kill weeds without hurting the crops. they have enjoyed great cost benefits, great savings from backbreaking tillage. all day, all night plowing, that doesn't have to occur when you can kill the weed with a chemical. roundup is absolutely instrumental. carol: what is striking in your story, many things that are striking, but the cozy relationship between monsanto in this case and government regulators in the epa. you point out that the epa's office of pesticides programs do have the final say in permitting pesticides but yet it relies on data from the pesticide manufacturers in making health decisions and they get 30% of their operating budget from the industry.
i wrote in my notes, "say what?" that is awfully cozy to me. peter: yes, and this is of problem that transcends monsanto. this is how the law was written. essentially, congress did not believe that allocating funds or the epa to do its own research on these compounds was necessary. that that they can rely on the chemical manufacturers to do the research, to hire the scientists and bring the data to the epa for analysis. they also said, well, that is an expensive undertaking for epa just to analyze it, so they are going to pay fees to the epa to do that, and so that is why you get this 30% budget being taken up by the chemical producers writing checks to the epa. carol: what is interesting right now is you have some lawsuits out there and farmers that have gotten non-hodgkin's lymphoma and they are suing monsanto.
what is going on with this case? what is the likelihood of how this might play out? peter: the key fact is that in 2015, two years ago, a very prominent cancer assessment agency that is associated with the world health organization -- it is basically a u.n. agency based in france. its acronym is iarc. they found there was an association between exposure and non-hodgkin's lymphoma. you know what resulted from that. everybody living on or near a farm or who applies pesticides for a living and has non-hodgkin's lymphoma is suing monsanto. oliver: next, an unprecedented war on airbnb. and new fears of the russian government could influence american businesses and consumers. that is ahead on "bloomberg
♪ oliver: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i am oliver renick. you can also see us online at businessweek.com. and on our mobile app/. in the technology section, the hotel money that is funding sting operations against airbnb. we talked to reporter josh edelson. josh: for several years, there has been a struggle between airbnb and its allies. on the other hand, lawmakers and the hotel industry, affordable housing groups had argued airbnb represents unfair competition in that it is taking housing stock away from new yorkers and turning it into a de facto hotel. airbnb says it is up against some powerful entrenched interests, and indeed as we report this week in businessweek, the hotel union and association are the main funders of this group share better which are going to some new and previously unreported
links to try to eat away at airbnb's footprint in new york. they are paying for private investigators to do undercover hidden camera stings in airbnb listings in new york. carol: it is not like they are just doing research and sending out surveys. there are actually covert operations and that is how you kick off your reporting. walk us through the two couples that go to new york and go for the same airbnb listing. josh: i report on private investigator who checked into a room using an identity. these investigators have things
like out-of-state i.d.'s, entire social media history they created just to keep their cover story intact and have the host accept them. in this case, the investigator is brought in by the agent of the host. the host was reportedly in israel at the time. after this investigator who is claiming to be part of a couple who would then be there as tourists with friends during the weekend. several things about this by the way contradicts what are the laws on the books for most residences in new york. she checked in. the other member of the so-called couple joins her. and then who shows up but then a different couple who had come over from britain who are checked in by accident to the same room essentially. and then we have these four people trying to figure out what was going on. one couple was checked in and the other couple knows that is the room they were supposed to be in. they end up calling the host who has a full sheet to look through to see what is going on in each of that building, all of which
substantiates the case that is being made by people paying for the sting. this is an example of a commercial, de facto hotel, and not some hobbyist. someone trying to make a little extra money. oliver: also, why a lab, one of the world's biggest cybersecurity companies, is coming under fire due to its connections with the kremlin. here is jordan robertson. jordan: kasperky lab is a company based in moscow that started 20 years ago. the founder is barrel chested, gregarious, funny ceo. he is 50. this company has been dogged by allegations for ties with the russian government in the last few years. basically for its entire existence. note they make an
antivirus product that objectively is very high quality. it rates very highly in these independent tests. it has a world-class cybersecurity research farm. it has a lot of fans both here in the u.s. and abroad, but these questions about business ties to the russian government are really what is hanging this company up and potentially a major threat to that in the u.s. oliver: let's get to the point. what do we know about the potential ties to russia because there has been dialogue about this and bloomberg businessweek, you have added to that conversation with investigative reporting of your own? what have you found? jordan: if you operate a company, regardless of what country you are in, you have to comply with the local laws. if the government demands data, you have to comply with that. that is the nature of business and legal requirements. what we discovered is for many years, we found emails from 2009. a sourceiven them bhy
indicating as far back as 2009, kaspersky was developing software in secret for the fsb, the russian government's main intelligence service. on its own, that is nothing very unusual. cybersecurity companies in the u.s. do hundreds of millions of dollars in business with the u.s. intelligence agency. u.s. companies do not go out of their way to deny they work with the u.s. government. eugene kaspersky and kaspersky labs has done exactly that. our story is showing that not only are they tied to the russian government deeper than eugene kaspersky has ever acknowledged, but also there are some unusual courses of what that relationship looks like such as a technician apparently goes on ride along's with officials as they arrest cyber criminals inside russia. unusual.y
has confirmed this but they said the intent is just for technical analysis. highly unusual. carol: i'm sitting at home, listening to this story or watching this story and thinking why do i care about this company? are they doing business with the u.s. government? are they doing business with a lot of u.s. companies? that is what is interesting. jordan: two really relevant answers. kaspersky labs claims to have 400 million customers around the world. our story shows that potentially as many as half of that amount may not even know that they are being protected by kaspersky software and that is because the antivirus engine is embedded inside firewalls, internet routers, things like that. -- ags that effect a ;pt lot of people at once.
the problem is that eugene kaspersky has offered to give his source code to the u.s. government for review. no one has alleged as far as we have seen that there is some kind of secret backdoor in the actual code itself. the concern is that the security software can be updated and is updated remotely all the time -- daily, weekly, hourly sometimes. the problem becomes if a malicious update were to be pushed down the servers on the order of the russian government -- we have no evidence this has happened -- there would be no way to detect that. oliver: turning a dance floor into an advertisement in pakistan. and savile row arrives stateside in new york. that's next on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪
new york, am 1330 in boston, 99.1 fm in washington and am 960 in the bay area. in london and in asia on the bloomberg radio plus app. in the economics section, multinational companies like coke and pepsi are finding a curious way to tap into the massive under 30 population of pakistan through raves. we talked to cristina lindblad. cristina: a lot of brands are using techno music and house music and sponsoring raves to grab this consumer market which is two thirds of pakistan under 30 which is mind-boggling. this is how they are trying to reach them. carol: you have big brands kind of getting in on this. cristina: coca-cola is doing a lot of marketing around music. in the raves, we found cellular carriers are big sponsors. pepsico is in the game too. oliver: how do the big corporations go from their main products to then thinking about putting on events in places like
this? as you point out in the story, it has also taken on elsewhere. what is the corporate strategy? how did it evolve? cristina: i think if you are talking about a market in which gdp per capita is under $600 a year, you are trying to reach a stratum of the population and this is a very focused way of doing it. a ticket to one of these events costs about $24. a lot of the kids that are attending them study university in the u.s. and u.k. and that is where they pick up the taste for this music. so it is really focused marketing in that way. carol: it is kind of brilliant for the brands because household consumption is a big contributor to gdp in pakistan, above global average.
cristina: it is 80% of gdp and the global average is under 60. the economy is growing at more than 5% a year. this is a big, hot market. at the same time, you have security issues. carol: how do they pull these off? cristina: it is basically kind of incognito. like, they announce the events on social media like only a few days before they are going to take place. the guest lists have been vetted by the promoters because there are a lot of security issues. oliver: that was my first reaction reading this was this is not really the type of place we think about this happening. one it is a very western type of thing. there are a lot of security concerns. there are terrorist incidents in these regions regularly. it is not one of these type of areas in the middle east where there are also human rights violations. it does not strike you as a place where people are going to party and have a good time. what does it actually look like inside because i'm curious, i cannot conjure up a good image, but you guys have because one of
our intrepid bloomberg folks was there. cristina: chris kay has attended several. we actually are using some of his photos from the events in the magazine story. they look actually like you would expect any london rave to look. some people dress up, strobe lights, all that. oliver: in the pursuit section, 168-year-old tailoring company huntsman has a sterling and elite reputation in england and now comes to new york. emma: we have a big story about huntsman, a 168-year-old bespoke suiting brand in london. it is on saville row, it is where all the tailoring houses live.
they are making a big move. they are opening up a showroom in new york which is kind of unheard of in the savile row community. they think they can attract more united states customers and i think it is an area for business growth. carol: this is a company with a great pedigree. a great history. emma: it is inspired by equestrian suiting so there is something that is specific about the cut of the jacket. if anybody that is interested in men's fashion in england, they know it is a huntsman jacket and they have the best cutters, the best tailors. it has now gone through a change of ownership. in 2013, it was bought by a hedge funder who has revitalized it. oliver: what is the customer base they want to get from new york because these are very expensive suits? where will they be drawing their client base from? emma: these suits start around $6,500 and go up from there.
that is for the bespoke, not off-the-rack. madeke means it is specifically for your body. they are hoping to attract men who already go to high-end suiting. also men from high-end brands that buy off the rack tom ford or gucci. it is that really high-end customer they hope to siphon off. it is not the guy going into indochino or suiting companies that focus on millennial men, starting at a much lower price point like $400 for a suit. they are after the rich guy. carol: it is like they have made suits for everybody. emma: winston churchill, every british celebrity has had a huntsman made-to-measure suit. gregory peck, old-timey movie stars wore huntsman. we had a writer go to a party the newsman when
showroom opened. with zacharyzing peck and talking about how he and his friends are into huntsman. it is that kind of crowd. it has a really great pedigree. carol: i love that lauren hutton has made suits for women. emma: i'm sure if you go in and say i would like to spend money, that's great. oliver: "bloomberg businessweek" is available on stands now and online. more bloomberg television starts right now. ♪
♪ emily: i am emily chang and this is the best of "bloomberg technology." we're bringing you all the top interviews from the week in tech. coming up, a look inside dick costolo's life after twitter. he joins us for a wide ranging conversation. an army of tens of thousands of tech companies, reddit us on the joins